Posts

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019

Re-Open - Recall - Receiving of documents - allowed - on condition to recall the Pw1 for his further evidence to record and not to allow by any further chief examination affidavit.

Whether the reopen petition, recall petition , Receiving of additional chief affidavit petition, doucment petition can be allowed when filed at the time of the arguments ?

whether the police has to observe sec.41 A of Cr.P.C - even in Sc and St cases? - yes Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.Without touching the merits of the case and acceding to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Police concerned to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and abide by the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1

Whether the Dhr/ plaintiff is liable to pay stamp duty for registration of sale deed only as per the value of agreement of sale - subject matter of the suit ? - No Under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’), stamp duty is payable on the value of the consideration shown in the document or the market value,whichever is higher. Therefore, the main plea of the petitioner that he was liable to pay stamp duty on the value shown in the agreement of sale was preposterous.

The termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator due to non-completion of the arbitration proceedings within the time fixed by the High Court, is the subject matter of challenge in the present case. From the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that the first part deals with reference to arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrary Tribunal and the Amendment Act would apply even to Arbitral proceedings commenced before the amendment, if the parties otherwise agree. In the instant case, we do not find any such consent being given by any of the parties warranting applicability of the amended Act, since the arbitration proceedings came to be initiated prior to the amendment. Further Section 29-A of the Amendment Act, prescribes time limit for completion of arbitral proceedings. Therefore the parties may opt to deal under the New Act even in cases which are pending before the Arbitrator as on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. On such option being exercised, the parties are bound under the provisions of New Act. As observed by us earlier, in the instant case, we do not find any such consent being given by the parties seeking applicability of the Amendment Act, 2015. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the arbitrator is de jure disqualified in view of Section 12 (5) of the Act cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed holding that the order under challenge terminating the mandate of the arbitrator is illegal and incorrect, and accordingly, the same is set aside.